Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Eiland's motion Pursuant to 28 USC Section 2255 without a hearing?

Questions Presented 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Eiland’s motion Pursuant to 28 USC Section 2255 without a hearing? 2. Was Eiland denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to challenge the deliberate or reckless, material omission of pen register and toll record analysis showing Miller’s long-distance calls to and from out of town drug sources and failure to utilize trap and trace techniques? 3. Was Eiland denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to challenge the deliberate or reckless omission of information regarding a key informant from the initial affidavit supporting the Miller tap? 4. Was Eiland denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to raise both facial and Franks challenges to the wiretaps, regarding the allegations that Blakney was part of the alleged Miller Eiland conspiracy? 5. Was Eiland denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel preformed deficiently in failing to object to irrelevant expert testimony which vouched for the credibility of government witnesses by assuring the jury that the government independently verified the truth of their testimony? 6. Was Eiland deprived of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance by the failure of his trial counsel to present evidence that he had a source of income from his auto shop business and worked in this business? 7. Was Eiland deprived of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance by the failure of his trial counsel to object to agent Hall’s lay opinion testimony interpreting wiretaps? 1 8. Did the court of appeals abuse its discretion in denying the Eiland’s motion for a certificate of appealability? 2