Whether the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying ineffective assistance of counsel claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing

QUESTON NUMBER ONE; Whether the district court abused its discretion by Summarily Denying Ground One as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus, failure to investigate and file a Motion to Suppress Evidence without conducting an Evidentiary Hearing ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the district court abused its discretion by Summarily Denying Ground Three as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by his ex-lawyer's failure to review Jenacks Act material and Discovery material with him and failing to request his consent and without his knowledge entered two Stipulations required further factual development through prompt an Evidentiary Hearing, see Schiro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Petitioner Hill, states that did the district court abuse its discretion by Summarily Dismissing Ground Four and Ground Six as it conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedents in Conley v. United States, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), and Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 80-83 (1977)?