[a]s Guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” We consider the two claims in order. A. “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). “[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Id. at 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475. As a result, “errors in application of state law, especially with regard to the admissibility of evidence, are usually not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.” Walker v. Engle, 703 F.2d 959, 962 (6th Cir.1983); see also Coleman v. Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533, 542 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Otherwise stated, a state court’s violation
holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law recognizing that a federal habeas court does not rule on errors in the application of state law especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief