IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20063

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD JORODGE GLADNEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-583

USDC No. 4:10-CR-735-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Jorodge Gladney, federal prisoner # 80179-279, appeals the 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea to producing 

and advertising child pornography. We granted a certificate of appealability 

“on whether counsel failed to adequately inform Gladney about Dr. [Diane] 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20063 Document: 00514059555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
No. 15-20063

2

Bailey’s psychological evaluation so that Gladney could consider whether to 

plead not guilty by reason of insanity.” 

On remand, the district court considered an affidavit from Gladney’s plea 

counsel stating that she reviewed the contents of Dr. Bailey’s report with 

Gladney prior to his rearraignment and that she “was confident that he had 

all of the information to make a decision whether to plead guilty or not.” 

Counsel also testified that Gladney never told her “that he did not understand 

that the nature of his conduct was criminal.” Based on Counsel’s affidavit and 

the rest of the record, the district court denied relief without holding an 

evidentiary hearing. Gladney now argues that the district court abused its 

discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and instead basing its 

ruling on contradictory competing affidavits.

A § 2255 motion can be denied without an evidentiary hearing if “the 

motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner 

is entitled to no relief.” § 2255(b). We review the decision not to hold an 

evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 

258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006). Generally, contested factual issues in a § 2255 case 

may not be decided on the basis of affidavits alone unless the affidavits are 

supported by other evidence in the record. United States v. Hughes, 635 F.2d 

449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981).

Our review of the record shows that the district court’s decision was not 

based solely on counsel’s affidavit but was adequately supported by evidence 

in the record that was consistent with counsel’s affidavit and that contradicted 

Gladney’s assertions that he was not properly informed of the substance of 

Dr. Bailey’s report. See Hughes, 635 F.2d at 451. Thus, denial of relief was 

proper even without a hearing. See id. 

 Case: 15-20063 Document: 00514059555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
No. 15-20063

3

Moreover, Gladney has failed to argue or show any objective likelihood 

that he would have succeeded had he gone to trial and asserted an insanity 

defense. See United States v. Batamula, 823 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir.) (en banc),

cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 236 (2016). He thus fails to establish “a reasonable 

probability that . . . he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted 

on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). 

Gladney fails to demonstrate that his counsel performed deficiently or 

that his defense was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The district court’s judgment is 

therefore AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-20063 Document: 00514059555 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2017