denial of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). VIII In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas relief does not lie for errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 112 S.Ct. 475, 479, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991); Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.1990). Absent fundamental unfairness, federal habeas relief is not available for a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19
holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review holding that when a state court adjudication is contrary to clearly established supreme court precedent this court must review de novo whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief holding petitioner not entitled to habeas relief on claim state court improperly used petitioners prior federal offense to enhance punishment holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief