him. Courts must be equally vigilant to protect counsel from the unfair imputation of professional neglect as to assure to the defendant effective representation.”). In short, it is simply not known how “counsel would respond to a charge of ineffective assistance.” Sneed v. Smith, 670 F.2d 1348, 1355 (4th Cir.1982). “[U]ntil it is[,] we think the colorable claim made here ... cannot properly be resolved.” Id. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) requires a “prompt hearing” on a petitioner’s § 2255 petition unless “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” We conclude that the present record does not “conclusively” foreclose Jones’ claim of deficient performance. See United States v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923, 927 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). B. Even though we conclude that the district
holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief holding that because it was not clear on the present record unlike in fuller that morenoriveras trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective the court should dismiss the appeal as untimely and the defendant would have the opportunity to develop the recordand seek a remedy for his trial counsels alleged ineffectiveness should he prove that trial counsel failed to timely file a requested appealin a  2255 motion before the district court holding that pepper did not allow petitioner to seek a resentencing under  2255 holding that the record did not conclusively foreclose  2255 relief where it was not clear that counsel disputefd the facts alleged by the petitioner holding that petitioner who did not raise the methamphetaminetype issue at sentencing or on direct appeal was barred from raising that issue for the first time in  2255 motion and that petitioner did not satisfy either the performance prong or prejudice prong of ineffective assistance of counsel standard