What is the test for denying a motion to suppress for abuse of power?

We review a district court's denial of a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing on motions to suppress for abuse of discretion. United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199, 203 (2d Cir. 2001). The court must hold an evidentiary hearing, we have ruled, if "the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the [issue] are in question." United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). To compel a hearing, the movant's allegations must be "neither vague, nor obscure, nor unspecific." United States v. Mathurin, 148 F.3d 68, 69 (2d Cir. 1998).