MEMORANDUM**

Appellant Cathy Ann Hurley (“Hurley”) appeals the district court’s dismissal, with*701out an evidentiary hearing, of her motion to vacate or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255 motion. United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing for a § 2255 motion. Id. We construe the certificate of appealability to encompass Hurley’s argument that the district court improperly denied her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) without conducting an evidentiary hearing under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Motions Challenging Sentencing Under Section 2255. We affirm.

“The district court may deny a section 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing only if the movant’s allegations, viewed against the record, either do not state a claim for relief, or are so palpably incredible or patently frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.” United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). We thoroughly have reviewed the record in this case, and we conclude that Hurley’s claims of IAC are either palpably incredible or patently frivolous.1 Hurley does not elaborate upon her allegations and does not cite to any evidence that would support her claims. The records before the district court conclusively showed that Hurley was not entitled to relief on any of her IAC claims. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hurley’s § 2255 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED.