hearing into a trial on the merits. Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 250 (5th Cir.2002). In this regard, courts have sensibly held that a district court has broad discretion in deciding how to resolve a Daubert challenge. In particular, a hearing is not necessary in all cases, as the submissions of the parties may provide a sufficient basis to determine if the proffered testimony is admissible. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (noting that a district court has “the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine [the] reliability [of expert testimony] as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination”) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142, 150 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). III. A. Testimony of George Robbins The
recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that district courts decisions about the propriety of hearing declaratory judgment actions  should be reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion