Write the right answer to the question based on the context passage.

Ex Input:
"Hey, guy."
"No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair.
It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry.
Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam.
Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year.
They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab.
"What's the problem?" Ray asked.
"I have a recalcitrant."
That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural.
"Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant."
"I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed.
There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Question: Who calls the drunk and disorderly recalcitrants?

Ex Output:
Pete


Ex Input:
In his lifetime, Ray had done a number of things for which he was not proud, things he'd like to see just as well stuffed down a dark hole. Everybody had things of which they were ashamed. Everybody has committed their share of sins that they wish they could take back. But this wasn't one of them, and he resented the implication that it was -- the implication that someone would dare to judge him for something they did not fully understand.
It was a good thing, a right thing, like the time he had given emergency CPR to the woman already ten minutes dead and gone, the woman whose mouth tasted of chocolate death and scrambled eggs, just to spare her horrified children the sense of helplessness while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. That had been a noble thing like this one was. Should have been.
Perhaps it was always less difficult to have things fail here, with the living, than it was with the dead. The dead had no opinions, no agendas. They weren't sensitive. The dead did what you fucking told them to do and didn't complain. Right?
The living simply did not understand that there were rules. They didn't want to understand something so banal. Someone who didn't take the time to understand the rules had no right to pass judgment on him. Not that it ever stopped them.
"I hear that you are unhappy," he said into the phone, then had to pull the receiver away from his ear so the woman on the other end could scream at him some more.
Conflict de-escalation technique number one was invariably affirmation. Make it clear that you are aware of the individual's feelings and frustrations, that you are at least listening to their side, whether or not you personally may eventually have the authority to validate or alleviate those feelings. People liked to be listened to. The illusion of having a voice was almost as good as actually having one. Isn't that why people still bothered to go to the polls on election day and vote?
And it worked on most people. This woman was not one of them. Question: Who was screamed at over the phone?

Ex Output:
Ray


Ex Input:
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone.

A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change.

At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant.

The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information.

They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today."

Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age.

"Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." Question: Who was convicted of a series of robberies in 2010 and 2011?

Ex Output:

Timothy Carpenter


