would entitle him to relief. If the allegations are not affirmatively contradicted by the record and the claims are not patently frivolous, the district court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing. It is in such a hearing that the petitioner must offer proof. 291 F.3d at 715 n. 6. Ordinarily, contested factual issues in a § 2255 proceeding may not be determined based only on affidavits. Owens v. United States, 551 F.2d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.1977) (affirming the district court’s denial of the petitioner’s § 2255 motion and noting that, although a disputed factual issue ordinarily cannot be decided based only on an affidavit, the affidavit that the district court had relied on was corroborated by other record evidence); see also Jordan v. Estelle, 594 F.2d 144, 145-46 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); Montgomery v. United States, 469 F.2d 148,
holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith holding that a plea affidavit can be incorporated into the record if the district court conducts an inquiry to establish that the defendant understands the affidavit and voluntarily signed it internal quotations omitted holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that the district court erred in denying a  2254 petition because it had improperly resolved a disputed factual issue based solely on an affidavit filed by the petitioners attorney and there was no record evidence that corroborated the attorneys affidavit