41 M.J. 736, 738-39 (N.M.Ct.Crim. App.1994); United States v. Britton, 26 M.J. 24, 26-27 (C.M.A.1988). The sharp contrast between appellant’s conditional plea to Specification 2 under Charge III due to the military judge’s ruling on his suppression motion, and the unconditional pleas entered on all other Charges and Specifications, highlights the fact that counsel was aware of waiver resulting from not making a plea conditional. We will apply waiver in unconditional guilty plea cases whether the alleged speedy trial violation involves the Sixth Amendment, R.C.M. 707, or Article 10, UCMJ, for we see no reason for differentiating between the three for purposes of applying the waiver rule. See Birge, 52 M.J. at 211; United States v. Sloan, 22 C.M.A. 587, 48 C.M.R. 211, 1974 WL 13798 (1974)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Hounshell, 7 C.M.A. 3, 21
holding a defendants failure to raise aclaim of outrageous government conduct in a pretrial motion pursuant to rule 12b2 constituted waiver of the claim holding that whether a pretrial motion actually caused or is expected to cause delay of trial is irrelevant to the speedy trial act holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that failure to raise a speedy trial issue constituted waiver under article 10 ucmj absent a timely challenge on the part of the appellant to any pretrial delay