Opinion ID: 3063753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a § 2255 proceeding for abuse of discretion. Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002). An evidentiary hearing must be held on a motion to vacate “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled 2 to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). No evidentiary hearing is necessary, however, “if it can be conclusively determined from the record that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel.” Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 834 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). A hearing is not required when the petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record. United States v. Guerra, 588 F.2d 519, 521 (5th Cir. 1979). In a § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Caderno v. United States, 256 F.3d 1213, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2001). To make a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 697 (1984). Prejudice is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. “It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693. 3