killing him: "I’m going to do to you what your forefathers did to my forefathers.” Mills contends that these factors made race a major issue in the trial and that Randolph was ineffective in failing to address the issue. 46 . Although " ‘[i]t is well established that a habe-as petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim if he or she alleges facts that, if proved at the hearing, would entitle petitioner to relief,’ ’’ Meeks v. Singletary, 963 F.2d 316 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1362, 122 L.Ed.2d 741 (1993) (quoting James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d 1562, 1573 n. 17 (11th Cir.1992)), an evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the proffered evidence would not affect the resolution of the claim. See Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 650-51 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872, 109 S.Ct. 189,
holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required on a postconviction motion because the movant did not allege facts sufficient to establish each of the necessary elements of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an allegation of failure to investigate and call witnesses 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 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 no evidentiary hearing is necessary on an ineffective assistance claim where the evidence petitioner sought to introduce would not affect resolution of the issue holding federal evidentiary hearing not statutorily barred when petitioner had sought to develop factual basis for claim in state court