First, defendant has filed his direct appeal, as allowed by the district court. Second, defendant appeals from the denial of the additional claims of ineffectiveness in his section 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm both decisions. In fact, however, defendant was stopped at a border checkpoint. The district court therefore denied defendant's motion without a hearing.
Defendant contends that the district court erred by refusing to hold a suppression hearing.
We review the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. A trial court is required to grant a suppression hearing only when a defendant presents facts justifying relief. A defendant who requests a hearing bears the burden of showing that there are disputed issues of material fact. In the instant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to suppress without a hearing. Defendant's motion raised no disputed issues of material fact that, if established, would entitle him to relief.