Should the district court have conducted an evidentiary hearing in order that Mr. Cordoba could have presented proof of his reliance on his attorney's out-of-court advice?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A .one year statute of limitation exists for a federal prisoner to collaterally challenge his criminal judgment. The limitation period, however, is not jurisdictional and may be equitably tolled. The Mr. Cordoba's attorney misinformed him about the deadline for filing a § 2255 motion. The record does not refute the allegation that the misadvice was given. The district court, without a hearing, concluded that equitable tolling did not apply. Should the district court have conducted an evidentiary hearing in order that Mr. Cordoba could have presented proof of his reliance on his attorney's out-of-court advice? Section 2255 contains four distinct limitation periods. Each period is one year long, but all involves separate commencement events. The discovery of. a new fact commences the period described in § 2255(f)(4). In January 2015, the government's time limit for filing a Rule 35(b) motion expired. In’ December 2015, Mr. Cordoba filed his § 2255. The district concluded the § 2255 was untimely. . Does the expiration of the Rule 35 time limit constitute an operative fact that commences the § 2255(f£)(4) limitations period? -i. é