of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Wright v. West, — U.S. —, —, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 2486, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992). This Court has no jurisdiction to grant habeas relief to “a person imprisoned under the sentence of a territorial court in a criminal case, unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no authority to hold him under the sentence.” Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 783-784, 7 S.Ct. 780, 781, 30 L.Ed. 824 (1887). Although petitioner cites the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the heading to this claim, his argument is based solely on state law. Consequently, his claim is not cognizable on habeas review. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41, 104 S.Ct. 871, 874, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984); Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Foltz, 654 F.Supp. 105, 106-107
holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute holding that congress did not authorize the states to enforce federal law where it gave states regulatory control through enforcement of their own laws holding that federal courts can not review a states alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures holding that a federal court is obliged to determine its own jurisdiction for each case recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts