the lawfulness of the search. The record cannot support any such interpretation of the District Court’s ruling. The Court stated at the end of its ruling that the “defendant furthermore has indeed not proffered any evidence that he has standing to warrant a suppression hearing in this case.” A 71. Plainly, the District Court found that Jackson had failed to put forth any alternative version of the facts to warrant a hearing, not that he lacked standing to challenge the search. Because the district court actually determined the suppression issue on its merits, Jackson’s standing argument must be rejected. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction. 1 . We review the District Court's decision whether to hold an evidentiary h (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267,
holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint