same rule today and which she filed her moving papers and in the moving papers albeit she did not fix an affidavit of a percent yet witnessed her moving papers were sufficient to charge or the court's responsibility to consider and in fact in my view have an evidentiary hearing on the on the merits rule forty one is the court knows is silent as to any mandatory obligation to move forward in moving papers with quite consequently it's our position that the appellate here his moving papers were adequate and the court abused his discretion in in ruling that in fact there was a obligation on the movements part to have some stop in sacramento the subsequent detention of the defendant taking the defendant to his home and ordering the defendant to open his apartment but interestingly enough in in the government's reconsider came forward with their own declaration so when i when i'm referring to the corroboration in the moving papers appellants counsel laid out a certain scenario it is it is with the investigators ha so my view was that in the totality of the circumstance when one looks at the the the procedural posture of the case there was not only a sufficient showing in the beginning with the moving papers certainly by the time the motion to reconsider was heard there was everything that was needed is there any showing in the motion to reconsider that that was something that couldn't have been put in the original i know your honor as a matter of to has to put the facts to issue in order to get an evidentiary hearing and why is this any different well your honor i think the difference is in fact we're dealing with a civil standard in the civil rules for all fifty six which is quite detailed in terms of what it requires is a court papers and and even with the moving papers i believe there was sufficient standard made to have an evidentiary hearing well why doesn't your bottom line come out to be you always get an evidentiary hearing simply on the basis of the to a hearing that's not my point i believe that the moving papers in this case worst of mission to trigger the evidence you're hearing but if one were to quibble about that my view is that again looking at what happened procedurally in this case certainly by the time the motion to reconsider was heard there was more than enough to trigger the obligation and again we're not we're not dealing with a real fifty six issue and so i suggest there is a difference the holding was there was a local rule that required an affidavit and in a word a lot of the the defendant did not satisfy the requirements and therefore this court said that it was it was not an abuse of discretion to deny and of nature hearing no case where a district court is reversed for abusing its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing where on one side there are affidavits from percipient witnesses and on the other side there are merely unsworn of counsel in a memorandum in support followed by a reply a here's a affidavit that in one respect even contradicts the narrative that's articulated in the memorandum in support and there still isn't one of for terri which i'll get to in a moment involved affidavit submitted by the moving party because since day one since the warrington nine hundred fifty five case that support that  transcript he was in the middle that court was in the middle of a criminal trial and took substantial time to review the memorandum in support and the nonexistent moving paper attachments and the affidavits are declarations of the police officers and then right so that took a lot of time and then what the defendant was telling the court was that the evidence or hearing that she was request that counsel was requesting would take a half a day or two a day  on no factual showing at all and certainly the district court has discretion in a situation where there is no assurance that it's that this is a serious material factual dispute that there's an actual first in those cases those are automatic denials of the defendants motion for for the motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing where there is no evidence at all on those records that the government submitted any affidavit or any evidence that all the rules in ward the rule and wardlow requires any defendant who's going to file a motion to suppress to attach his personal affidavit and worthless says that's fine regardless of what the government does with no government evidentiary attachments it's motion denied no evidentiary hearing and if and if that is constitutionally permissible then surely it is within it was within judge rules discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing where there was no clash in evidence whatever now the court has has that has inquired about whether there was an excuse for not submitting the evidence the affidavits at the beginning one there's there's certainly no reason why the defendant himself couldn't have attached something he had he would not the way think that the man in protection under simmons and actually in the transcript the hearing which is excerpts of record specs page twelve are the defense attorney does explain why there's the sort of she explains that it would be too much trouble to send the investigator out in the field and get a draft