need only allege-not prove-reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. at 715 n. 6 (emphasis in original). “A hearing is not required on patently frivolous claims or those which are based upon unsupported generalizations. Nor is a hearing required where the petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted in the record.” Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545, 1553 (11th Cir.1989) (citation omitted) (remanding for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to inform appellant of statutory parole consequences before entering a guilty plea because record did not conclusively show that appellant was entitled to no relief); see also Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1238-39 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th
recognizing that evidentiary hearing is not required when  2255 petitioner offers nothing more than conclusoiy allegations holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on  2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes