With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Aff. of Maria Grancio ¶ 6. For its part, the United States does not dispute that Mrs. Grancio did not have actual knowledge of the “critical fact” of DeVec-chio and Favo’s alleged involvement until 2004; instead, it cites to media coverage and court cases addressing the relationship between Scarpa and DeVecchio. Thus, the sole dispute concerning the accrual of Mrs. Grancio’s FTCA claim is the ultimate question of whether publicity cited by the United States would have put a reasonable person on inquiry notice prior to January 6, 2004, that DeVecchio and Favo played a role in Grancio’s murder. Because the facts relevant to this issue are undisputed and already in the record, there is no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Cf. Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Although the Second Circuit has not spoken on

A: holding that district court acted within its discretion in deciding nonfrivolous  2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing
B: holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits
C: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion
D: holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on  2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit
A.