Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo ANDERSON-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-01
Citations: 514 F. App'x 945
Docket Number: No. 12-10549
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo ANDERSON-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 945–945

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo ANDERSON-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10549
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 1, 2013.
Todd B. Grandy, Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen Baer, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymundo Anderson-Ruiz, who was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
The sole argument made by Mr. Anderson-Ruiz is that the district court erred in not sua sponte holding an eviden-tiary hearing on his speedy trial claim. We find no abuse of discretion, much less plain error. The district court, in denying Mr. Anderson-Ruiz's motion, assumed that his factual allegations were true. See Docket Entry 13 at 2-3. Because Mr. Anderson-Ruiz does not challenge the district court's decision on the merits, an evidentiary hearing would not have helped Mr. Anderson-Ruiz in any material way. As we have said before, a district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing where the movant's allegations, even if true, do not warrant the relief requested. See, e.g., Chavez v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1443 (11th Cir.1996).
Affirmed.