Frank R. Fato, Sr., appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court has granted a certificate of appealability. After a review of the record, we affirm.

Fato first contends that his sentence, imposed upon revocation of supervised release and probation, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and was imposed without jurisdiction. However, because a sentence imposed after the revocation of supervised release is not considered a new punishment, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated. United States v. Pettus, 303 F.3d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1998). In addition, the sentencing court was well within its jurisdiction to sentence Fato to a sentence greater than the recommended guideline range. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (sentencing guidelines regarding violations of probation and supervised release are non-binding and advisory).

Next, Fato asserts that the district court improperly decided the case without a hearing. However, because it was clear from the record that Fato was not entitled to relief, no hearing was necessary. See Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 301 (3d Cir. 1991). Finally, Fato contends that the district court judge should have recused himself. This claim is also without merit, because Fato failed to show any evidence of extra-judicial bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147,127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED