(3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. 4 . We do not consider any argument that Allen is entitled to relief under R.C.M. 707(a)(1), which provides that "[t]he accused shall be brought to trial within 120 days after ... [plreferral of charges.” Bums and its progeny appear only to deal with claims of constitutional violations, not violations of military procedural rules. See, e.g., Burns, 346 U.S. at 139, 73 S.Ct. 1045 (explaining that federal civil courts have jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed alleging the proceedings under which they were convicted "denied them basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution”) (emphasis added); Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252-53 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Allen’s counsel effectively
holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal holding that for a federal court to have jurisdiction to review courtmartial proceedings the asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension  recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings