is b 2d 27 (1993). The position of the Fourth Circuit on this issue, however, was recently overruled by the Supreme Court in Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 2236, 132 L.Ed.2d 375 (1995). In Gutierrez, the Court held that the Attorney General’s scope certificate is conclusive only for purposes of removal, not for purposes of substitution. Id. The Court acknowledged that the language of the statute, which states that “certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal,” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) (emphasis added), is capable of various interpretations. Gutierrez, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2236. Under one view, the certification is conclusive for all purposes. See Johnson, 983 F.2d at 1319 (<HOLDING>). Under the other view, it is conclusive only
holding that the statute is mandatory and that once the district court found that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial it did not have authority to circumvent his commitment to the custody of the united states attorney general for hospitalization until it could be determined whether probability existed that the defendant would regain capacity to be tried recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred holding that if the attorney general issues a scope certificate the action must be removed to federal court and the united states must be substituted as the party defendant by the plain language of 28 usc  2679d2 no discretion is given to the district court holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a