jurisdictional sufficiency of the certification, and, to the extent that our opinion can be read to support the view that certification is not reviewable, it is dictum. The government does not rely on Romulus to support its position on the certification issue in the instant case. 6 . Both C.G. and Vancier were decided before the ■1984 amendments that added subsection (3)'s “substantial Federal interest” prong. See Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 1201(a), 98 Stat. 2149 (1984). The certification in each of these cases was based on an alleged lack of state court jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the offenses charged. C.G., 736 F.2d at 1477; Vancier, 515 F.2d at 1380. 7 . Contra United States v. Juvenile Male, 915 F.Supp. 789, 793 (W.D.Va.1995) (hereinafter “Juvenile Male (W.D.Va.) ”) (<HOLDING>). 8 . See S. Rep. at 386 ("[C]ertain
holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits holding that an employers inquiry into the reason for an employees work absences was a permissible jobrelated inquiry under the ada holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the court may only make a facial inquiry into the validity of the certification