With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951, 969 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Franklin, 415 F.3d 537, 555-56 (6th Cir.2005)). B. The District Court’s Denial of an Evidentiary Hearing before Ruling on Allen’s Motion Allen argues that “[a]t a minimum, the trial court should have granted [his] request for an evidentiary hearing raised in both his original Rule 33 motion, and renewed in his motion for reconsideration.” Defendant-Appellant Br. at 15. A trial court, however, has the discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a motion for a new trial. O’Dell, 805 F.2d at 643. We require a defendant to produce at least a modicum of evidence in support of a request for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Bass, 460 F.3d at 838 (<HOLDING>). When filing his Rule 33 motion, Allen did not

A: holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant the defendant an evidentiary hearing  because the defendant failed to proffer any evidence that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
C: holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless
D: holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless
B.