Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding pre-trial and guilty plea ineffective assistance of counsel, and whether the petitioner stands actually innocent of Aggravated Identity Theft under the Supreme Court's Dublin ruling

QU ESTON NUMBER ONE: Whether the district court abused its discretion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmance of the lower court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing as to Ground One, thus, did he suffer from pre-trial ineffective assistance of counsel in which violated his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the district court abused its discretion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmance of the lower court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing as to Ground Two, thus, did he suffers from Guilty Plea ineffective assistance of counsel in which violated his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the district court abused its discretion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmance of the lower court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing as to Ground Three, thus, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in Dublin, 216 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2023), he stands actually innocent of his Aggravated Identity Theft as to Count 29, to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice his guilty plea should be withdrawn ?