Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Ex Input:
Social networks like Facebook and Twitter are often where the public expresses concern and even outrage over perceived miscarriages of justice. In recent years, internet users have been especially prolific in promoting awareness of a perceived tendency among some judges and prosecutors to seek and accept insufficient punishments for sexual crimes particularly against women and children. One such case emerged in 2018 and 2019 and involved the prosecution of Justin Schneider of Anchorage, Alaska who, according to one internetmeme, served no jail time despite having seriously assaulted a woman he picked up outside a gas station in August 2017. On October 2018, Facebook user Ed Stonick posted a widely shared meme that contained a photograph of Schneider along with the following text, which some readers might find disturbing: GENOCIDE JUSTIN SCHNEIDER This is Justin Schneider, he is 34 years old and lives in Anchorage, Alaska. He is a white male who picked up a hitch-hiking indigenous female. He strangled her unconscious, masturbated over her body, and left her to die. This week he pled guilty in an Anchorage District Court. Because his victim survived he was given a plea deal. The kidnapping and sexual assault charges were dropped. He was given no time in jail and only received one year of probation. This is the face of American justice. This is the face of white privilege. This is the face of genocide. This fact check won't examine the broader cultural issues raised by the meme and in other coverage of the Schneider case, namely the extent to which the American criminal justice system is relatively indifferent to crimes experienced by indigenous women, such as the woman at the center of this case. Rather, our article will evaluate the factual claims made in the meme. Much of the content of the meme is quite accurate, though it contains some errors. On 8 August 2017, Schneider pulled up in his vehicle and approached a woman who was standing outside a gas station in Anchorage. She entered his van and some time later, he attacked her, strangled her, masturbated over her and ejaculated on her, acts that Schneider later admitted in a subsequent civil case brought against him by the woman. Using a license plate number provided by the woman, police tracked down Schneider and arrested him on suspicion of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree harassment and second-degree assault. Schneider initially pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The woman claimed that Schneider had invited her into his vehicle under false pretenses, calling himself "Dan" and claiming to be an acquaintance of hers, allegations Schneider continues to deny. She also claimed that he had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. Schneider has admitted strangling her, but denies doing so to the point of her losing consciousness. Despite facing three criminal charges, Schneider and his attorneys were able to persuade the office of Anchorage District Attorney Rick Allen to drop the charges of kidnapping and harassment, in exchange for Schneider pleading guilty to second-degree assault. On 19 September 2018, Alaska Superior Court Judge Michael Corey sentenced Schneider to two years in prison, with one year suspended, and three years of probation,as a result of the plea agreement with prosecutors. However, because Alaska law allows for time spent under house arrest to effectively be regarded as "time served," Schneider was not required to serve the 12 months remaining on his prison sentence. After the sentencing, the state of Alaska's Department of Law provided the following explanation for the plea agreement and sentence: Although Mr. Schneider received one year of jail time, Alaska law allows an offender to receive credit for any time spent on an ankle monitor or under house arrest against any jail sentence imposed. The Department of Law heard from a number of concerned citizens that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Criminal Division Director John Skidmore independently reviewed the case and concluded the sentence was consistent with, and reasonable, under current sentencing laws in Alaska. Mr. Schneider plead guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, a class B felony in Alaska, in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining charges notably, first-degree kidnapping and first-degree harassment. The State dismissed the most serious charge based on the conclusion that the State would be unable to prove the kidnapping at trial. Kidnapping requires that the victim be "restrained" or moved against his or her will. Additional investigation determined that the victim willingly got into Mr. Schneider's vehicle and willingly drove with him to the location of the assault. Under these circumstances, the criminal charge of kidnapping (as defined under Alaska law) could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Schneider was convicted of the remaining most serious crime: second-degree assault. Based on Mr. Schneider's lack of criminal history, the sentencing range for the offense was zero to two years in jail. "Though it is understandable that some feel his sentence was not sufficiently harsh," Director Skidmore explained, "All prosecutors are ethically required to follow the law, no matter how disturbing the facts may be." While the facts of this case were particularly disturbing, Mr. Schneider's offensive physical contact with bodily fluid such as semen is not categorized as a sex crime under Alaska law. Despite this limitation, the prosecutor felt Mr. Schneider needed sex offender treatment. The only way to achieve that result was to have Mr. Schneider agree to the probation conditions. Thus, the prosecutor required Mr. Schneider to undergo sex offender treatment and comply with other monitoring conditions as a condition of the plea agreement. In November 2018, Alaskans voted to recallCorey from the bench, after a campaign that criticized his sentencing of Schneider. Speaking in March 2019, Corey said he and the prosecutors in the case were constrained by sentencing guidelines and Alaska state law, and described the outcome of the case as "a horrible result." Also in November 2018, the woman filed alawsuit against Schneider, seeking damages, compensation and legal fees and accusing him of assault and battery, negligence and inflicting emotional distress. In his response to the civil complaint, Schneider requested the case be dismissed but admitted to "tackling, strangling and ejaculating on" the woman, and accepted that he had "intentionally or recklessly caused physical injury or emotional distress." He denied having tricked the woman into entering his vehicle, and denied that she lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her. As of March 2019, the woman's civil case against Schneider was still before the Alaska Superior Court. The meme was accurate in stating that Schneider had assaulted, strangled and masturbated over the woman the core allegations against Schneider, all of which he has admitted. However, Schneider disputes the specific claim that the woman lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her, so we cannot definitively rule on the veracity of that particular allegation. While the meme claimed that Schneider was given one year's probation, in fact Judge Corey gave him three years' probation. That's a significant discrepancy, even if it does not change the view, held by many observers, that Schneider's punishment was woefully inadequate. Finally, Schneider did serve some jail time in August 2017, after his arrest and before his release on bail, but the principal claim in relation to his case is that his punishment did not include jail time. So the meme's claim that "he was given no time in jail" is mostly accurate, since Corey did sentence Schneider to two years in prison, but he suspended one year and credited the remainder of the prison sentence with the time Schneider spent under house arrest while on bail. Thus, the actual effect of Schneider's sentencing was that he did not have to go to jail as part of his punishment.

Ex Output:
"Justin Schneider was ""given no jail time,"" despite having strangled and assaulted a hitchhiker in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2017."

Ex Input:
A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page "American News X" revived interest in the image: This is a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who passed away in the 1870s after claiming she took abortion-inducing drugs, and we were able to corroborate many of the details of the inscription via contemporaneous news reports. Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn't until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place. The Story of Kate Simpson (AKA Kate McCormick) McCormick's story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case are still a bit unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick's death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie's story starts in Humboldt, Tenn., where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child with the promise that he would soon follow to marry her. But Burgess never followed. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as "Mrs. Widrig's boarding house." Police arrived and found that the child's mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day: Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.com The Trial of Dr. D.S. Johnson Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating "large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures" with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for "feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick." A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: Mrs. Widrig was sworn and stated that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas, but only stayed one night that she came back three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or, rather, Sunday morning, she was delivered of a dead child; that Dr. Johnson had been attending her; that her suspicions were aroused and she asked Katie to tell her the whole truth; on Sunday Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die; this she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession; she said: "Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short," and then she added: "Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago, and said if it did not do its work in six days it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it." Mollie Brown sworn: Katie told me last night that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express; she said to me she was satisfied she was going to die, and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it. Wed, Feb 2, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.com Dr. Johnson's version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea: Dr. Marable testified as follows: On Sunday morning was called by Dr. Johnson to make a call; he told me about the case, and said he had prescribed for diarrhea; the treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson; he said that he had discovered that she had a baby last night, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth; I attended to her immediately, and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, and the remedies resulted successfully; the girl appeared very weak; Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once with reference to the dead child, and at my instigation Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which inquest was held on Sunday; I advised Dr. Johnson as to the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery; the girl had diarrhea and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment; the girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends; trouble of mind and excitement very often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet; I think flooding and mental anxiety was the cause of her death. Johnson testified as follows: Three weeks ago I first saw the deceased; she came to my office and told her story, and wanted to hide her disgrace; I advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law; I called to see her at Mrs. Widrig's boardinghouse and prescribed for diarrhea; on Sunday morning I called and found that she had a miscarriage; I then called on Dr. Marable; the prescription given her by me was ascitate of lead and morphine; the girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she said this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. The Burial of Kate McCormick The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick's mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter's death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, didn't undertake a visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4February 1876 (which contains some racial language common to the era) noted that McCormick's body was stored in a "pauper's coffin" in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County: Fri, Feb 4, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.com The reporter who found McCormick's body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of a Capt. GeorgeW. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick's body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery: Fri, Feb 4, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.com McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick's sad tale.

Ex Output:
A photograph shows a tombstone from 1875 that marks the resting place of Kate McCormick, who reportedly died after a botched abortion.

Ex Input:
Some legal experts believe Bayer will have a tough time convincing appellate courts to throw out verdicts and lawsuits on those grounds. Bayer has a better shot if a business-friendly U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case, experts said. But that could take years. Bayer has come under intensifying pressure after a third consecutive U.S. jury on Monday found Roundup to be carcinogenic, awarding more than $2 billion to a couple who used the chemical on their property - the largest verdict in the glyphosate litigation to date. Bayer, which inherited the Roundup litigation with its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto last year, faces lawsuits by more than 13,400 plaintiffs nationwide, alleging the product causes cancer. The Germany-based company's shares have been hammered since the first Roundup cancer verdict against it last August, wiping out some 40 billion euros ($44.76 billion) in market value and leaving Bayer worth less than the price it paid for Monsanto. Bayer denies that Roundup causes cancer, saying decades of studies have shown glyphosate and the weed killer to be safe. On Wednesday, the company said it will argue that the lawsuits, which are brought under state law, conflict with guidance from a federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On April 30, the EPA reaffirmed prior guidance saying that glyphosate is not a carcinogen and not a risk to public health when used in accordance with its current label.. Citing the EPA decision, Bayer has repeatedly rebuked plaintiffs' calls to add a cancer warning to Roundup, saying the agency would reject that change. Under the legal doctrine of preemption, state law claims are barred if they conflict with federal law. "We have very strong arguments that the claims here are preempted ... and the recent EPA registration decision is an important aspect of that defense," William Hoffman, one of Bayer's lawyers, said during a call with reporters on Wednesday. Hoffman said the argument applied to all U.S. Roundup lawsuits. Preemption is generally regarded as a "silver bullet defense" because it stops claims across the board, said Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. But Zimmerman and three other legal experts agreed that Bayer faces a big hurdle convincing appeals courts that the EPA determination on glyphosate shields it from state law claims. They cited a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA's approval of a product does not necessarily bar state law claims. The ruling, Bates v Dow Agrosciences, gives broad leeway to juries to decide if such claims should proceed, they said. Judges in the three Roundup cases that have gone to trial against Monsanto all rejected the company's preemption argument, citing this ruling. "In light of the Bates decision, it's going to be an uphill battle for the company to win on preemption on appeal," Zimmerman said. Bayer also said it will argue on appeal that trial courts improperly admitted evidence that was not backed up by science. But legal experts said appellate courts generally defer to lower court evidentiary rulings. Lars Noah, a law professor at the University of Florida, said Bayer's chances of success would increase significantly if the Supreme Court takes up the Roundup appeals. The high court only accepts around 70 cases each year, but a business-friendly majority on the court could be inclined to hear the dispute, said Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. Since 2005, the high court has decided at least three preemption cases in favor of companies, none of which involved the EPA. The Supreme Court will soon rule in another case that rests on whether a U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval preempts tort claims. In that case, plaintiffs sued Merck & Co over the company's alleged failure to warn of the risk of serious bone fractures associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. Merck, which denies the allegations, argued the lawsuits should be preempted because the FDA did not require an additional fracture warning in the drug's prescribing information. During a January hearing, the Justices appeared to side with the company. Bayer in a statement on Thursday said it does not believe the 2005 Bates ruling posed a barrier for the appellate courts due to other Supreme Court rulings since then. Noah agreed that the Court has more recently signaled its appetite to limit lawsuits that contradict opinions by experts at regulatory agencies. "The Bates decision by now sticks out like a sore thumb," Noah said. "Bayer has more than enough ammunition in recent Supreme Court cases to show the trial court judges got it wrong."

Ex Output:
Bayer bets on 'silver bullet' defense in Roundup litigation; experts see hurdles.