Alabama's provision opting out of the federal exemptions is not
expressly limited to domiciliaries or residents. “In cases
instituted under the provisions of Title 11 of the United States
Code entitled ‘Bankruptcy,’ there shall be exempt from the
property of the estate of an individual debtor only that property
and income which is exempt under the laws of the State of
Alabama and under federal laws other than Subsection (d) of
Section 522 of said Title 11 of the United States Code.”
Alabama Code § 6-10-11. However, this provision has been
construed to apply only to residents and therefore nonresident
debtors may use the federal exemptions. In re Walley, 9 B.R.
55 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.1981)(opt-out applies only to Alabama
residents).

Additional support for use of the federal exemptions in cases
where the opt-out is limited to residents may be found in the
following cases.
In re Camp, 631 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011)
(because Florida's opt-out statute applies only to Florida
residents, nonresidents may use the federal exemptions.).
In
re Varanaz
i, 394 B.R. 430 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2008) (because
New Hampshire had not opted out for nonresidents, debtor
residing in Ohio could choose the federal exemptions.
In re
Chandler
, 362 B.R.723 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2007) (because
Georgia had not opted out for nonresidents, debtor was
eligible for federal exemptions); In re Battle, 366 B.R. 635
(Bankr.W.D.Tex.2006) (because debtor was not resident of
Florida on date of filing, debtor could not claim Florida’s
exemptions, but Florida’s opt-out, which was limited to
residents, did not bar debtor from claiming federal
exemptions); In re West, 352 B.R. 905 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006)
(because debtor was not resident of Indiana on date of filing,
and its exemptions were limited to residents, its exemptions
were not available to her and debtor was eligible for the
federal exemptions under the saving provision in 11 USC § 522
(b)(3)); In re Jewell, 2006 WL 2258363 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2006)
(debtors, who were not residents of Colorado on date of filing
were not eligible for its exemptions because its exemptions
were limited to residents, but debtors were eligible for federal
exemptions under the saving provision in 11 USC § 522(b)(3));
In re Crandall, 2006 WL 2051367 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006)
(because debtor was not domiciled in New York on date of
filing, and its exemptions were limited to domiciliaries, debtor
was eligible for federal exemptions under the saving provision
in 522(b)(3)); In re Underwood, 342 B.R. 358 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.
2006) (because debtor was not a resident of Colorado on date
of filing and Colorado’s exemptions and opt-out were limited to
residents, debtor was eligible for federal exemptions) In re
Schulz, 101 B.R. 301 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1989) (because debtor
was not resident of Florida on date of filing, and Florida’s
exemptions and opt-out were limited to residents, debtor was
not eligible for state exemptions, but was entitled to federal
exemptions); In re Volk, 26 B.R. 457 (Bankr.D.S.D.1983)
(exemptions of South Dakota were limited to residents and,
therefore, were not available to debtors who were not
residents of South Dakota on date of filing, but debtors were
eligible for federal exemptions because South Dakota’s opt-out
was limited to residents).
West, Jewell, and Crandall can be
criticized not for their result but for their unnecessary resort to
the savings clause when the applicable state's opt-out did not
apply to nonresidents.