Appellant, moreover, cites no authority other than Maryland Rule 16—732(f) in support of his argument that he should have had a hearing on the motion to quash, and we know of none. Certainly Maryland Rule 2-311, the general rule on motions, does not assist Appellant. We agree with the Commission that subsection (f) of Rule 2-311, which addresses hearings on motions other than motions filed under Maryland Rules 2-532, 2-533, and 2-534, does not entitle Appellant to a hearing on his motion. Rule 2-311(f) provides: Hearing—Other Motions. A party desiring a hearing on a motion, other than a motion filed pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534, shall request the hearing in the motion or response under the heading “Request for Hearing.” Except when a rule expr .2d 1235, 1239 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Phillips v. Venker, 316 Md. 212, 217, 557
holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on  2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit holding that court did not have to hold a hearing to determine attorneys fees where detailed affidavit was provided holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court