SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Emilia Rodriguez, who stands convicted after trial of conspiracy to traffic in 100 or more grams of heroin, appeals from an amended judgment entered on February 9, 2012, on remand. See United States v. Rodriguez, 531 Fed.Appx. 148 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Sealed Vehicle # 1, 440 Fed.Appx. 22 (2d Cir. 2011). That judgment sentences Rodriguez to a statutorily mandated minimum prison sentence of 60 months, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), a sentence that is 39 months longer than the prison term imposed by the original judgment of the district court. Rodriguez, 531 Fed.Appx. at 148-49. We remanded this matter to the district court again, retaining jurisdiction pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1994), for fact-finding concerning Rodriguez’s claim that her counsel was constitutionally ineffective in challenging her original judgment of conviction on appeal. Rodriguez, 531 Fed.Appx. at 150; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Forbes v. United States, 574 F.3d 101, 106 (2d Cir. 2009) (applying Strickland to appellate counsel). In particular, we indicated that the district court should inquire into counsel’s consultation with Rodriguez about pursuing an appeal on her behalf, and whether the government offered to withdraw its cross-appeal in exchange for Rodriguez’s withdrawal of her appeal. On remand, after accepting affidavits from Rodriguez, her former counsel, and the government, but without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an Opinion and Order on October 25, 2013, concluding that Rodriguez had not satisfied her burden to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged unprofessional errors. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision. We review a district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 350 (2d Cir. 1995).

As noted above, on remand, the district court solicited affidavits from Rodriguez, her former counsel, and the government, but declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Based solely on the affidavits, the court found that although Rodriguez’s counsel filed the notice of appeal without her authorization, “the [g]overnment would have filed a direct appeal of Rodriguez’s sentence even if she had not appealed,” and Rodriguez was therefore not prejudiced by counsel’s conduct. SA58. The *54 court also declined to determine whether the Assistant United States Attorney had agreed to stipulate to a mutual withdrawal of appeals, instead concluding that Rodriguez had not shown prejudice because the AUSA was not authorized to make such a commitment.

Under the circumstances, we believe it was incumbent upon the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The affidavits submitted by Rodriguez, her former attorney, and the government differ in significant ways, presenting material issues of fact that impede our review of Rodriguez’s ineffectiveness claim. For example, Rodriguez and her former attorney offered conflicting accounts of the contact information he had for Rodriguez. The district court should have resolved this factual dispute and elicited more detailed information from the former attorney concerning his attempts to contact Rodriguez after her sentencing. Additionally, the affidavits of Rodriguez’s former counsel and the government offered conflicting accounts of whether an AUSA offered to withdraw the government’s appeal in exchange for the withdrawal of Rodriguez’s appeal. The district court declined to resolve this factual dispute.

Our prior remand order, however, expressly contemplated that the district court would develop a factual record pertaining to former counsel’s efforts to consult with Rodriguez about filing a notice of appeal, and the government’s putative offer to withdraw its appeal. By failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes and elicit greater detail about the circumstances surrounding Rodriguez’s original appeal, the district court disregarded our remand order, and consequently exceeded its discretion. 1 On remand, the district court should resolve the factual disputes we have identified, elicit fuller testimony regarding the government’s decision to pursue its appeal, 2 and otherwise create a factual record that is sufficient to permit review of Rodriguez’s ineffectiveness claim. In addition, we encourage the district court to ask the parties to address what relief, if any, is available to Rodriguez at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. This panel retains jurisdiction to hear Rodri *55 guez’s ineffectiveness claim once the record has been supplemented. See United States v. Leone, 215 F.3d 253, 257 (2d Cir. 2000). 3 The mandate shall issue forthwith.