to the government to show that the search or seizure was reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 63 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir.1995). Jackson contends that once he demonstrat ed in his suppression motion that the evidence was seized without a warrant, the District Court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing* because the burden shifted to the Government to prove the search and seizure was reasonable, without him having to make any further evidentia-ry production. We do not agree. The standard for when a hearing is required is well settled in our case law. As a general matter, an evidentiary hearing is required in circumstances in which a defendant advances a “colorable claim” that his or her constitutional rights have been violated. United States v. Brink, 39 F.3d 419 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). A claim is “colorable” if it consists “of
holding that the magistrates recommended order terminating temporary supervision and placing the child in permanent guardianship was not supported by competent substantial evidence because the magistrate failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing violated the fathers due process rights holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing where the defendant stated a colorable claim that the government violated his constitutional right to counsel by placing him in a cell with a known informant who may have been acting as a government agent holding a coa applicant forfeited a claim of error in district courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing by not seeking a hearing in his  2254 proceeding holding that the defendants conclusory assertion that he told his counsel he wanted to testify but that counsel failed to call him as witness was insufficient to require a hearing or a response from government but the defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to state his claim with greater specificity