entitlement to habeas relief, the appropriate course is to employ Rules 6 and 7, rather than to request an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Velarde, 485 F.3d at 553, 559-60 (10th Cir.2007). Of course, the limitations set out in § 2254(e)(2) apply "when expansion of the record is used to achieve the same end as an evidentiary hearing.” Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196, 1209 (10th Cir.2003) (quotation and alteration omitted). Only when a petitioner diligently sought to develop the factual basis of a habeas claim in state court can he utilize the procedures set out in Rules 6 and 7. Id. 15 . The district court utilized this standard because the OCCA summarily denied Hooks’s request for an evidentiary hearing. See Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Under the particular facts of this case,
holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding that where the state court denies petitioners requests for discovery investigatory funds and a hearing the court cannot find that petitioner failed adequately to develop the facts of his claims in state court holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing holding federal evidentiary hearing not statutorily barred when petitioner had sought to develop factual basis for claim in state court