have the constitutional right to present a defense, including the right to offer testimony and evidence in their defense. See Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). However, the review of a state court evidentiary ruling by a federal court on a petition for habeas corpus is limited to a determination of whether the error, if any, was of such magnitude so as to deny Petitioner his right to a fair trial. Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1483, 1487 (11th Cir.1989) (citation omitted); see also Boykins v. Wainwright, 737 F.2d 1539, 1543 (11th Cir.1984) (stating that generally federal courts reviewing habeas corpus petitions are not empowered to correct erroneous evidence rulings of state trial courts); United States v. Weisman, 624 F.2d 1118 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Before relief can be granted the error must
holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court