OPINION OF THE COURT

We have before us an appeal purporting to challenge the August 16, 1995 order of the district court “granting ‘next Mend’ status and a competency hearing and finding no deliberate delay.” Respondents’ Memorandum of Appeal. The State does not offer a basis for the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory matter nor does it ask us to exercise our mandamus authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

Unlike the appeal from the grant of a stay of execution on which we had alternate grounds of jurisdiction, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and mandamus jurisdiction under the All Writs Act given the extraordinary circumstances of the grant of a stay, we find that we do not have jurisdiction in the absence of a certification by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It is hereby ordered that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.