The government fails to provide us with any authority showing a distinction between appeals of transfer orders based on procedural as opposed to substantive claims. On the contrary, we found several opinions from our sister circuits addressing interlocutory appeals alleging procedural deficiencies with transfer orders and certifications. Because a juvenile is not any less prejudiced by a criminal proceeding based on an improper jurisdictional basis than on one based on an improper substantive basis we find this distinction to be without merit. II Having determined we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal we will now address appellant's first issue. Appellant contends the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the government's need certification was signed by an Assistant United States Attorney rather than by the United States Attorney.
Proper certification is a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction over juveniles.
We review statutory interpretation de novo. If the Attorney General does not so certify, such juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal authorities of such State. Appellant claims the above jurisdictional requirements were not met because the certification was signed by Assistant United States Attorney Gorence. The government claims Mr. Gorence was properly delegated with the authority to sign the certification. The government states, and appellant does not dispute, that United States Attorney Kelly was absent from the office on the day Mr. Gorence signed the certification.