Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): THOMAS, MOORE, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur. 1 . The will contained two codicils, and for the purposes of this opinion, the will and the codicils are referred to collectively as "the will.” 2 . As is explained in later analysis in this opinion, and in notes 3 and 5, infra, we have used the term "personal representative” for ease of reference, but JaNell and David, and, ultimately, Mary Elizabeth, technically sought to be the administrators with the will annexed. 3 .Mary Elizabeth is seeking to be appointed an administrator with the will annexed. An administrator is subject to the residency requirements of § 43-2-22, Ala.Code 1975, but an executor named in a will is not subject to those residency restrictions. See § 43-2-191, Ala.Code 1975, and Ex parte Adams, 168 So.3d 40, 44 (Ala.2014) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Mary Elizabeth did not testify regarding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in  2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling (B) holding that the specific date restriction set forth in  541a5 controls and that  1306a1 does not eliminate that restriction (C) holding that an executor named in a will is not subject to the nonresident restriction set forth in  43222 (D) holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself (E) holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute
Output (English): holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself