on appeal fails to raise the issue of how the admission of the statements violated his right to a fair trial or his due process rights or any other right protected under the federal constitution. Instead, the briefing focuses on and argues that admission of the statements violated that state clergy-communicant privilege statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13 — 90—107(l)(c). Whether or not the finding of the state courts complied with state law under Colo.Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(l)(c) is irrelevant to this Court’s analysis of Applicant’s claim. Errors of state law do not provide grounds for federal habeas relief. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475. The briefing makes only makes a cursory reference and citation to due process and a fair trial under U.S. Const. A 1 n. 6 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Applicant failed to do so in his direct
holding that an earlier specific statute trumps a later more general one holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim 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 to exhaust a claim a petitioner must present it to the state courts under the same theory in which it is later presented in federal court 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