As the Eighth Circuit held in Oswald v. Gammon, “The petitioner must make a threshold showing of actual innocence to warrant a hearing. The timing of the submission is relevant, as is the likely credibility of the affiants.” 51 F.3d 277, 1995 WL 133543, *1, No. 94-3044, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS 6229, at *3 (8th Cir.1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In a separate case, that court elaborated that our “confidence in the outcome of [the petitioner’s] state trial” must be “undermined” before he is entitled to a hearing “for the purpose of developing the evidence needed to pass his proeedurally defaulted habeas claims through the actual innocence gateway.” Davis v. Gammon, 27 Fed.Appx. 715, 717 (8th Cir.2001); see also Patterson v. Bartlett, 56 Fed.Appx. 762, 764 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Our confidence in Sibley’s guilt remains
holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas petitioner claiming actual innocence because it is unlikely that an evidentiary hearing on the allegations con tained in the affidavits would produce the sort of reliable evidence of actual innocence that schlup demands 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 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 that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant the defendant an evidentiary hearing  because the defendant failed to proffer any evidence that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance