the entry of such order. The statute establishes a three-part test for certification that is “virtually identical to the statutory standard of certification utilized by the United States district courts.” Wolfchild v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 472, 481 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the court must determine that (1) a controlling question of law is at issue, (2) the question presents a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) certification of an immediate appeal materially could advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. These findings ensure that interlocutory review is the exception to the general “firm final judgment rale” observed by the federal courts. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (<HOLDING>). A decision to certify initially lies within
holding in context of companion 28 usc  1292b that rjoutine resort to interlocutory appeals would hardly comport with congress design to reserve interlocutory review for exceptional eases while generally retaining for the federal courts a firm final judgment rule internal quotations omitted holding that a magistrate judge acting pursuant to   636b1  has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal under 28 usc  1292b  2000  holding that circuit court cannot entertain interlocutory appeal when standards of  1292b are not met holding that under 28 usc  1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited