cause and prejudice shown with respect to the default. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). Powell makes no such showing. 20 . Nor does Powell's cited authority support the result he seeks. Although the cases acknowledge the principle that erroneous admission of evidence can rise to a federal constitutional violation, not one of those cases found that an error of constitutional magnitude occurred. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 70, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (declining to reach the question whether “it is a violation of the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for evidence that is not relevant to be received in a criminal trial”); Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Humphries v. Ozmint, 397 F.3d 206, 217 (4th
holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation recognizing that the integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment recognizing that where evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment provides a mechanism for relief but finding no such unfairness in the present case holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment