Juan Gabriel Arizpe appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress without holding an evi-dentiary hearing. He argues that the contentions he raised in his motion implicitly challenged the state trooper’s reason for stopping his vehicle and that his implicit, conclusional statement was sufficiently specific and detailed to warrant an eviden-tiary hearing.

The motion to suppress contained no detailed factual allegations suggesting that the reason for the vehicle stop was invalid or that the length of the stop was unjustified. The district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of the motion was not error. See United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005); Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530-31 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.