What is the test for denying a district court's decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of the writ?

We review de novo the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990). We review the district court's decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. Greyson v. Kellam, 937 F.2d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir.1991).

A district court may dismiss a habeas petition for an abuse of the writ when a petitioner raises a claim in a subsequent petition that could have been raised in the first petition, "regardless of whether the failure to raise it earlier stemmed from a deliberate choice." McCleskey v. Zant, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1468 (1991). Failure to raise the claim in a previous petition will be excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice or if a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from a failure to entertain the claim. Id. at 1470. Cause exists when an "external impediment" prevents the petitioner from raising the claim. Id. at 1472. "Omission of the claim will not be excused merely because evidence discovered later might also have supported or strengthened the claim." Id.

In deciding a section 2255 motion, a district court is required to give a claim "careful consideration and plenary processing, including full opportunity for presentation of the relevant facts." Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 869 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. 2255. A district court has the discretion to forego an evidentiary hearing and rely instead on the record, which may be supplemented by the following: discovery and documentary evidence, the judge's own notes and recollection of the trial, and common sense. Id.