KAREN B. MOLZEN, Judge.
Petitioner is represented by the Federal Public Defender, and counsel filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Doc. 40. On March 28, 2002, I conducted a telephonic hearing on the motion with Richard Winterbottom appearing for Petitioner and Max Shepherd for Respondents. Mr. Winterbottom explained that Petitioner has abandoned all but the claims specifically addressed in the motion and supporting memorandum. The faxed letter to the court dated March 29, 2002 (attached) identifies those portions of the record which support a finding that Petitioner has met his burden for an evidentiary hearing.
I find Petitioner attempted to develop the factual basis for his remaining claims in state court and, as such, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) is not applicable. See Romano v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir. 2002). Because he raises colorable ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and I am not presently satisfied the claims are contravened by the record, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. See Mayes v. Gibson, 210 F.3d 1284, 1287-88 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1020 (2000).
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. Counsel shall advise the Court within two weeks how long the hearing on the remaining claims will take, how much time they need to prepare for the hearing, and dates they are available.