on a motion to suppress under an abuse of discretion standard. Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir.1999) (stating that whether to hold evidentiary hearing on admissibility of contested evidence “rests in the sound discretion of the district court.’’). 2 . Other Courts of Appeals likewise require a defendant to raise significant factual disputes in order to receive a pretrial evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000) (stating “An eviden-tiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.”); United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398, 1408-1409 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sophie, 900 F.2d 1064,
holding that when material facts that affect the resolution of a motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search are in conflict the appropriate way to resolve the conflict is by holding an evidentiary hearing after which the district court will be in a position to make findings holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute 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 plenary hearings are required when there are contested issues of material fact on the basis of conflicting affidavits