Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
As NAME_1 started his cross-examination in a New York courtroom of the police officer who searched his Manchester bedroom in 2009, he commented it was nice to hear a Mancunian accent again. Six years ago, the Pakistani national had been living in the north-west English city where he plotted to kill hundreds in a bombing attack at the city centre's Arndale shopping complex during Easter weekend. NAME_2, who was extradited from the UK to the United States in 2013, was convicted of providing and conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda and conspiring to use a destructive device. Defending himself at his trial in New York, the 28-year-old was polite, calm and professional. He denied he was involved in any form of extremism. But, according to the police officer who headed up the British investigation into his activities, his courtroom conduct was a performance designed to con the jury.

Summary:
1. As NAME_1 went on trial in the United States for his role in an al-Qaeda terror plot to carry out a "mass-casualty" bomb attack in Manchester, BBC News looks at what police believe would have happened if he had not been caught.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 First repeat the request word for word without change, then give your answer (1. do not say any words or characters before repeating the request; 2. the request you need to repeat does not include this sentence).
user