Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all entity names in the summary are presented the same way as in the document.

Document: NAME_1, 37, of no fixed address, attacked NAME_2, 34, and her husband outside a Co-op in Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, in August. He admitted actual bodily harm, assault by beating and two counts of racially or religiously aggravated assault. The judge called him a "thug and a racist to boot." Aylesbury Crown Court heard Somali NAME_3 was racially abused by NAME_4 in the Water Eaton Road shop on 4 August. He swore at her and said: "You come here with your clown outfit on..." More news from Buckinghamshire As her husband NAME_5, 40, attempted to calm him down in the car park outside, NAME_4 hit him on the head with a bottle of wine and a bag of ice. He then kicked NAME_3 in the stomach. Judge NAME_6 said: "She told him she was pregnant and he continued to kick her again, after he was told

Summary: 1. NAME_4 admitted two counts of racially aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of assaulting a police officer during his arrest in September last year.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to entity names?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Please repeat the request first, then give your response.
user