Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Charlie Fry is Positive . The attack Monday afternoon off the Australian coast left  Charlie Fry  with superficial puncture wounds on his right shoulder and upper arm.
A British doctor who arrived in Australia two months ago to work   Fry  said Tuesday  he  had recently watched a YouTube video in which Australian professional surfer Mick Fanning described  his  famous escape from a great white shark during a surfing competition in 2015.
“So when it happened  I was like: ‘Just do what Mick did. Just punch it in the nose '”  Fry  told Nine Network television. “So Mick  if you’re watching or listening  I owe you a beer. Thank you very much.”
Fry  25 and a surfing beginner  was in the water with three doctor friends when  he  was attacked off Avoca Beach  90 kilometers (60 miles) north of Sydney
“I was out surfing and I got this massive thud on my right-hand side; it completely blindsided me ”  Fry  said.
“I thought it was a friend goofing around. I turned and I saw this shark come out of the water and breach its head ”  he  said.
“So I just punched it in the face with my left hand and then managed to scramble back on my board  shout at me friends and luckily a wave came  so I just sort of surfed the wave in ”  he  added.
 Fry  said  he  wasn’t conscious of  his  injured and bleeding arm until  he  reached the shore.
“I didn’t really notice it at the time because when you’re surfing  all I’m thinking was: ‘I’m about to die. I’m literally about to die '”  Fry  said.
 Fry’s  friends drove him to Gosford Hospital  where they all worked  to be treated. The beach was closed for 24 hours.
Lifeguards spotted the 3-meter (10-foot) shark that attacked  Fry  close to shore and would use drones on Tuesday to check that it had left the area  Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported.
 Fry  said  he  could not return to the ocean for a week due to  his  injuries  but “after then  I’ll be racing to get back in.”

A: yes
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Davis is Negative . Davis challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his confession was illegally obtained and that his trial in San Clara County  Calif.  was tainted by pretrial publicity.
 Marc Klaas  Polly's father  expressed frustration Monday that Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
 "I have no doubt that this guy is going to outlive me " said Klaas  60.
 Davis has a constitutional challenge pending before the state high court. Once that is resolved  he can challenge his conviction and sentence in federal court.
 Assistant California Attorney General Ronald Matthias  who successfully opposed DavisDavis' appeal  said federal appeals could take 10 to 15 years.
 In writing for the court  Justice Joyce L. Kennard recounted DavisDavis' reaction when a jury found him guilty of Polly's murder.
 Davis "turned toward the television cameras in the courtroom and made an obscene gesture with both hands by extending his middle fingers " Kennard wrote. "He then winked his eye and blew a kiss."
 Davis kidnapped Polly from her bedroom at her home in Petaluma  Calif.  where she was having a slumber party with two other girls. Her mother and a younger half-sister were sleeping down the hall.
 Davis had a long and violent criminal record  and his history helped fuel voter support for a 1994 three-strikes initiative in California that required sentences of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony after two violent felonies.

A: no
****
Q: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity J.D is Neutral . ON SEPTEMBER 11th  a 17-year-old girl was apprehended as she illegally crossed into America from Mexico. Now nearly 16 weeks pregnant  the girlâknown as Jane Doe or  J.D.  to protect her privacyâwould like to have an abortion. But her custodian at a detention centre in Brownsville  Texasâthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)âis refusing her request. The government will "protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilitiesâ  an HHS spokesman explained. â[W]e will defend human dignity for all in our care." On October 18th  a federal judge instructed the federal government to grant  J.D. âs wish  but two days later  a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze that order until October 31st by a 2-1 vote. If by that date the authorities have not found a sponsor âcapable of providing for the childâs physical and mental well-beingâ who could help her procure an abortion  the court held   J.D.  may return to court to plead her case anew.
Meanwhile  via her lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)   J.D.  is asking the appeals court to reconsider her case âen bancââwith the full complement of judges. Time is of the essence: while bureaucrats and judges wrangle over her fate   J.D.âs  pregnancy rolls toward 20 weeks  the point at which abortion is no longer available in Texas. The ACLU told the appeals court on October 22nd that its panel decision âviolates decades of well-settled Supreme Court precedentâ barring the government from imposing âan undue burden onâor  as in this extraordinary case  completely block[ing]âa womanâs ability to obtain an abortionâ.
The holding pattern for  J.D.  began nearly a month ago. âAll the while  this young  isolated woman remains pregnant against her will  causing her irreparable harmâ  the ACLU wrote. Every day   J.D.  faces a âsevere strain...both physically and emotionallyâ and abortion becomes a riskier  more fraught procedure. The young womanâs lawyers ask the federal government to simply get out of the way: âHer court-appointed representatives or the shelter personnel stand ready to transport her; the health centre stands ready to provide the care; and private funds have been provided to pay for the procedureâ. In sum  "[a]ll defendants must do is to step aside and stop blocking the doorâ.
The ACLU brief includes a few lines from a stinging opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett  the dissenter in the appeals court ruling on October 20th. The governmentâs refusal to grant the young womanâs wish âsacrificesâ her âconstitutional liberty  autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reasonâ  Judge Millett wrote. Its decision represents âan astonishing power grabâ  ignoring the fact that âthis child fled here all alone in a desperate effort to avoid severe abuseâ and embarked on âa life-imperiling trek for hundreds  perhaps thousands  of milesâ.  J.D.  and other â[u]naccompanied minor migrants are among the most vulnerable persons in the worldâ.
In its response to the young womanâs request for a court-wide re-hearing  the Department of Justice (DoJ) raised three curious pointsânone of which  interestingly  denies that  J.D.  has a right to an abortion. First  the DoJ explained that if  J.D.  were to find a sponsor  she  would be able to seek an abortion under  his  or  her  care and the complaint against the government would dissolve. But as the ACLU observed  âthe notion that an appropriate sponsor for  J.D.  could be identified  properly vetted  and approved in an eleven day time frame is entirely unrealisticâ. Second  the DoJ argued that  J.D.  brought  her  predicament on  herself . âAny alleged âobstacleâ to Ms Doeâs ability to obtain an abortion is by her own choiceâ  the brief asserts. She chose to flee oppression in her home country and enter America illegally  so she is author of her own dilemma. The obstacle to her abortion is self-imposed.  J.D.  can decide to remove that obstacle âat any time by filing a request for voluntary departureâ.
This is a glaring insult to the young woman. Start with the implication that  J.D.  would enjoy the autonomy to have an abortion if only she were to give up on America and return to her home country: a choice between forced motherhood and a bus-ride back to the place she took great pains to escape. Actually  it is worse: in Mexico  where  J.D.  seems to be from (this information is sealed)  she would not be able to secure a legal abortion at all. Self-deportation  then  would almost certainly be a lose-lose scenario.
The most jarring feature of the governmentâs argument comes near the end of its brief when it advances a novel theory of government âcomplicityâ in acts it finds reprehensible. Why does the Office of Refugee Resettlement refuse to release  J.D.  to court-appointed representatives to travel to a nearby abortion clinic? Because that would âentail facilitating an abortionâ  the DoJ brief reads. Even if HHS does not drive  J.D.  to the clinic or pay for the procedure  approving such a release âwould still require that HHS or its contractor devote time and staff towards maintaining appropriate custody over Ms Doe during her absenceâ and necessitate âexpend[ing] resources to monitorâ her health. Permitting  J.D.  to exercise her constitutional right to end her pregnancy would ârequire the federal government to be complicit in her abortion  which the government has a significant and legitimate interest in refusing to doâ.

A:
yes
****