conduct defense.”). III. Evidentiary Hearing Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the disputed facts outlined above. But Defendants have not alleged facts that, even if true, would entitle them to dismissal of the indictment. Thus, an evidentiary hearing would be of little value. See United States v. Holloway, 778 F.2d 653, 658 (11th Cir.1985) (“[T]he prevalent rule as to the showing required to entitle a defendant to a hearing on a charge of prosecutorial misconduct is that if defendants raise a material fact which, if resolved in accordance with the defendants’ contentions, would entitle them to relief, they would be entitled to a hearing.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Dyman, 739 F.2d 762, 768-69 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). There being no allegation of the sort of
holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing