value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury,” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727; see also Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 42-43, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (plurality opinion) • (describing “familiar and unquestionably constitutional eviden-tiary rules [that] authorize the exclusion of relevant evidence,” including Federal Rule of Evidence 403). Therefore, we review “all evidentiary .rulings—including constitutional challenges to evidentiary rulings— under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)); see also United States v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). . Further, even if we assume that the
holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis