allegedly deficient opening statement and is not entitled to relief under Strickland. 6. Evidentiary Hearing Hooks asserts the district court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. In so asserting, he broadly contends such a hearing would establish trial counsel “failed to provide any reasonable advice or assistance” during the entire course of the proceedings following the pre-trial hearing and would include testimony from trial counsel and family members “who have personal knowledge of [trial counsel’s] unconscionable conduct.” In denying Hooks’s re quest for an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that even assuming the truth of Hooks’s factual assertions, he was not entitled to habeas relief. See Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). “A district court’s decision to grant or deny
holding that a court considering a request for an evidentiary hearing must take into account the deferential standards of  2254d and a hearing is not required if the record refutes the applicants factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief holding that under preaedpa law a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing so long as his allegations if true and if not contravened by the existing factual record would entitle him to habeas relief holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources holding violation of rule 23a does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief