Can-the-District-Court-deny-a-28-U.S.C.-§-2255-motion-without-holding-an-evidentiary-hearing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The first question deals with circumstances under which an evidentiary hearing may be warranted, including the level of burden a petitioner must meet in a post-conviction collateral motion, which has divided the Circuits. For example, while the First Circuit has held that the burden is a “heavy” | one, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have held that the burden is “relatively light”. The Fourth Circuit, in the current case, by upholding the District Court’s decision denying petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing and declining to issue a Certificate of Applicability even when the petitioner had alleged, based on the review of the record and additional evidence obtained from the prosecution’s files and another Federal Agency under the Freedom of Information Act, that multiple government witnesses lied under oath at pre-trial and ; trial proceedings, and government introduced into evidence a forged and fraudulent document in order to prove petitioner’s mens rea to commit the alleged crimes with full knowledge of . prosecution, appears to have sided with the First Circuit by significantly raising the petitioner’s burden to seek an evidentiary hearing. ; The second question deals with the proper interpretation of the baseline criteria crafted by this Court in Liteky v. United States 510 U.S. 540 (1994) for identifying trial judge’s in-trial conduct amounting to pervasive bias which may be violative of due process and require recusal of the trial judge. While majority of the Circuits favor recusal when bias stems from a trial-judge’s in-trial conduct which may be deemed pervasive, the Fourth Circuit has held that the alleged bias, no matter how pervasive must not have arisen out of litigation (although in a post Liteky case the Fourth Circuit did recognize that “the only cases where courts have granted recusal motions based ii on in-trial conduct tend to involve singular and startling facts.”). The two questions presented for the Court’s review are: 1. Can the District Court deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing by disputing the veracity of the facts alleged by the petitioner under the penalties of perjury, when: (a) those facts are neither refuted by the record nor inherently incredible; and (b) the specific factual allegations that, if true, state a claim on which relief could be granted? 2. Did the trial judge’s pre-trial and trial conduct, including her stark remarks, expression of disbelief over a key defense witness’s testimony in the presence of the jury, and a favorable argument made at her own initiative on the government’s behalf without requiring the government to produce testimonial evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, deny the petitioner a fair trial in a fair tribunal guaranteed by the Constitution? ; iii