contain “issues of fact material to the resolution of the defendant’s constitutional claim.” Id., 89 F.3d at 1067. Jackson did not offer any version of events contrary to the version contained in the police reports he attached to his motion. He based his request for an eviden-tiary hearing only on alleged discrepancies in the reports, which he argued raised questions about the truthfulness of the account provided, and raised the suggestion that the events leading to his arrest may have unfolded differently. This was not a sufficient showing under Brink and Voigt. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing. Jackson also argues that the District Court erred when it determined that he lacked standing to cha (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Wojtowicz v. United States, 550 F.2d 786, 790
holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that the test for granting an evidentiary hearing in a criminal case should be substantive did the defendant make a sufficient threshold showing that material facts were in doubt or dispute holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case