Whether a district court may deny a habeas corpus petition solely because a petitioner's factual allegations contradict a guilty plea

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L The district court denied Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing because Petitioner’s factual allegations are “contradicted by the guilty plea.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 clearly states that “Tujnless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall...grant a prompt hearing..., determine the issue and make findings of fact.” May a district court deny habeas corpus petitions solely because a petitioner’s plausible factual allegations contradict a guilty plea? At minimum, must a court grant an evidentiary hearing when the credible allegations, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief? I. As Buck v. Davis holds, at “the [Certificate of Appealability] stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that ‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims.” The Eighth Circuit’s Simmons v. United States decision holds that “it must be assumed upon appeal that the factual allegations of the petition are true” when a trial court dismisses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. The district court acknowledged that Petitioner’s allegations, if true, indicate Petitioner is actually innocent, yet nonetheless dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. Did the Eighth Circuit commit legal error in denying Petitioner’s application for COA?