context: [2] The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 250 F.3d 79, 82
citation_a.parenthetical: reviewing the denial of a merits hearing under 28 U.S.C. SS 2255 for abuse of discretion
citation_a.sentence: See Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir.2001) (reviewing the denial of a merits hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for abuse of discretion); see also Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir.2010) (remanding to the district court to consider a petitioner’s equitable tolling claim and noting that “[t]he decision as to whether an evidentia-ry hearing is warranted is ... consigned to the district court”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 593 F.3d 226, 232
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding to the district court to consider a petitioner's equitable tolling claim and noting that "[t]he decision as to whether an evidentia-ry hearing is warranted is ... consigned to the district court"
citation_b.sentence: See Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir.2001) (reviewing the denial of a merits hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for abuse of discretion); see also Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir.2010) (remanding to the district court to consider a petitioner’s equitable tolling claim and noting that “[t]he decision as to whether an evidentia-ry hearing is warranted is ... consigned to the district court”).