A. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 states that "Unless the motion and the files and records of
the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the
court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney,
grant a prompt hearing thereon , determine the issues and make findings
of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. " Here, the District Court 's
primary reason for denying Petitioner 's claim was that "there is simply not
enough evidence in the record to permit the Court to conclude that, but for
her counsel 's errors, Movant would have pled guilty ", but not that the record
conclusively shows that if Petitioner 's claims are true, she would nonetheless
be entitled to no relief. Did the District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia err in denying Petitioner 's request for an evidentiary hearing
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255?

B. The denial of an evidentiary hearing in a § 2255 proceeding is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the District
Court 's reasoning amounted to an abuse of discretion, stating that the
District Court made "a misstatement because the question before the court
was not whether there was enough evidence in the record to substantiate
Jensen 's claims, but whether Jensen had pleaded sufficient facts that, if true,
would show that she was prejudiced by her attorney 's deficient performance ";
but then, in an unprecedented application of the harmless error rule, citing to
inapplicable case law for support, the Eleventh Circuit completely
disregarded the District Court 's abuse of discretion error and engaged in its
own de novo analysis to determine whether the District Court 's dismissal was
appropriate, ultimately, making the exact same error. Did the Eleventh
Circuit erroneously overlook and misapprehend the appropriate standard of
review as to the sole issue of whether the District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on
Petitioner 's ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

Whether the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim