Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015 (3d Cir.1988). We held that a district court may empanel an anonymous jury if it “conclud[es] that there is a strong reason to believe the jury needs protection [ ... and] tak[es] reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected.” Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1090 (quoting United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1192 (2d Cir.1991)). The Group I appellants assumed that a trial court’s decision to empanel and sequester an anonymous jury was reviewable only for abuse of discretion, an assumption implicitly followed by the Edmond court. See Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Paccione, 949 F.2d at 1192). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions (B) holding that voir dire of jury may be delegated to magistrate judge where defendant consents to the delegation because the district court retains the ultimate decision on empaneling the jury (C) recognizing the district courts broad discretion to utilize civil procedures in a manner that is useful and equitable to the parties (D) holding that the empaneling of an anonymous jury is left to the district courts discretion subject to the broad constraints noted above (E) holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad
Output (English): holding that voir dire of jury may be delegated to magistrate judge where defendant consents to the delegation because the district court retains the ultimate decision on empaneling the jury