Shawn Phillip Harger appeals the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute ecstasy and cocaine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. In the § 2255 motion, Harger claimed, among other things, that his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal as Harger instructed. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected Harger’s claim, finding that he presented no evidence that he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal and that the Government’s evidence — correspondence between Harger and his attorney and between the attorney and Harger’s mother— established that Harger did not make this request. We granted a certificate of ap- *152 pealability on the issues of whether Har-ger’s counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal and whether the district court should have held an eviden-tiary hearing.

If a defendant requests that counsel file a notice of appeal, counsel’s failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance even without a showing that the appeal would be meritorious. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 486, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); cf. United States v. Tapp, 491 F.3d 263, 266 (5th Cir. 2007). A district court may deny a § 2255 motion without first holding a heax'ing oxxly if the evidence conclusively shows that the px-is-oner is not entitled to relief. United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992).

The court clearly erred when it found that Hax-ger provided no evidence that he instructed his attorney to file an appeal because, in the § 2255 motion, Harger declared under penalty of perjury that he explicitly instructed his lawyer to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746; Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a declaration made under penalty of perjur’y is competent evidence). Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Government does not contradict Harger’s sworn statement, as the correspondence is silent on the issue of whether Harger asked his attox-ney to appeal his conviction and sentence. Thus, the record fails to conclusively establish that Harger did not instruct his lawyer to file a notice of appeal, and the district coui’t abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998).

The denial of Harger’s § 2255 motion is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing on Harger’s claim that he instx-ucted counsel to file a notice of appeal.