that firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(A). The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231; we have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the conviction. Because we write only for the parties, we dispense with any lengthy discussion of the facts. Jackson argues that the district court’s refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion was improper. He argues that “once the defendant has established a basis for his motion, i.e., the search or seizure was conducted without a warrant, the burden than mere bald-faced allegations of misconduct.” United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1067 (3d Cir.1996). Thus, to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a defendant’s motion mus 2d Cir.1977)
holding that a defendant must present sufficiently detailed and controverted factual allegations in order to receive an evidentiary hearing holding that defendant bears the burden of showing there are material facts in dispute and an evidentiary hearing is only required when the motion to suppress raises factual allegations that are sufficiently definite specific detailed and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in issue holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint