ultimate determination of this motion. Thus, an evidentiary hearing on the Brady issue is unwarranted, and defendant’s request for such a hearing, made in a footnote, is denied. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302 (2d Cir.2006) (“Where, as here, the additional evidence of perjury is not sufficiently material to undermine confidence in the verdict, there is no need to probe the extent of the Government’s awareness of the perjury.”); United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir.1992) (“Since it is not necessary to resolve the issues that might be the focus of an evidentiary hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.”); United States v. Basciano, No. 03-CR-929, 2008 WL 794945, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Spinelli, No. 07 CR
holding that if a district court dismisses a  2255 claim without holding an evidentiary hearing we take as true the sworn allegations of fact set forth in the petition unless those allegations are merely conclusory contradicted by the record or inherently incredible holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the  allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by  1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false