With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 404 U.S. at 323, 92 S.Ct. 455). Referencing its preference for resolving issues of delay by relying upon statutes of limitations the United States Supreme Court stated: “ ‘The law has provided other mechanisms to guard against possible as distinguished from actual prejudice resulting from the passage of time between crime and arrest or charge.’ ” Jones, 94 F.3d at 906 (quoting Marion, 404 U.S. at 322, 92 S.Ct. 455) (emphasis in original). Critically, as the Fourth Circuit recounted, “the courts of appeals have uniformly held that to obtain a dismissal under the Due Process Clause a defendant must establish that a pre-indictment delay actually prejudiced his defense .... ” Jones, 94 F.3d at 907 (emphasis in original); accord Wilson v. McCaughtry, 994 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). After reviewing the rulings of the various

A: holding that despite sixteenyear delay between crime and indictment defendant must demonstrate that he suffered actual and substantial prejudice
B: holding that a defendant must not only show actual prejudice as opposed to mere speculative prejudice  but also  any actual prejudice was substantial  that he was meaningfully impaired in his ability to defend against the states charges to such an extent that the disposition of the criminal proceeding was likely affected
C: holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim
D: holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury
A.