and ongoing violation of the Federal right.” Because the PLRA directs a district court to look to current conditions, and because the existing record at the time the motion for termination is filed will often be inadequate for purposes of this determination, t §§ 3626(b)(2) and (3), read together, to mean that, when the plaintiffs so request in response to a defendant’s motion for termination, the district court must allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to show current and ongoing violations of their federal rights.”); Tyler v. Murphy, 135 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir.1998) (agreeing with the argument that proponents of prospective relief under the PLRA must be given an opportunity on remand to present evidence supporting such relief). But see Cagle v. Hutto, 177 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1264, 120 S.Ct. 2723,
holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his  2254 proceeding holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that  3626b3 does not require a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing in all cases although noting that a district court may do so in appropriate circumstances and stating that a hearing is mandated if the party opposing termination alleges specific facts which if true would amount to a current and ongoing constitutional violation holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses