Opinion ID: 723463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Traverse and Evidentiary Hearing

Text: 5 Martinez contends that the district court erred in denying his section 2255 motion without first allowing him the opportunity to file a traverse and without first holding an evidentiary hearing. These contentions lack merit. 6 Under section 2255, a hearing need not be conducted if the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994); see also Frazer, 18 F.3d at 781. Such a determination may be made either before any response is ordered from the government or after the government has filed a response. See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 5. 7 Here, the record conclusively shows that Martinez is not entitled to relief under section 2255. Accordingly, the district court did not err when it denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994); Frazer, 18 F.3d at 781. Furthermore, Martinez has shown no harm from the district court's failure to provide him with an opportunity to file a traverse. See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 5. 2 The district court's order is therefore 8 AFFIRMED.