East Boston man wins $2 million Mass. State Lottery instant ticket grand prize

Orley Espinosa is one lucky guy.
Espinosa, a resident of Revere, is the $2 million grand prize winner in the Massachusetts State Lottery's'$2,000,000 50X Cashword' instant ticket game, lottery officials said in a statement on Friday, May 9.
Lottery officials said he chose the cash option and received a one-time payment of $1,300,000 before taxes.
Espinosa told lottery officials that he plans on using his winnings to help his family.
The winning ticket was purchased at 7-Eleven, 14 Maverick Square in East Boston.
The store will receive a $20,000 bonus for its sale of this ticket.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

31 minutes ago

• Forbes

Judge Sides With Universities, Blocks NSF's 15% Indirect Cost Cap

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing a 15% cap on indirect ... More research costs funded by NSF. A federal judge has granted summary judgment in favor of several universities and higher education organizations that had sued the National Science Foundation over its attempt to limit the reimbursement of indirect costs associated with research grants funded by the agency. In her 52-page ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani vacated NSF's recently announced policy of capping its indirect cost payments at a standard rate of 15%, declaring it 'invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law.' She also ordered NSF to provide written notice of her decision 'to all funding recipients affected by the 15% Indirect Cost Rate' within 72 hours. The decision represents the latest legal setback for the Trump administration, which has tried — so far unsuccessfully — to impose the 15% cap on grants funded by other federal agencies. U.S. judges have previously blocked similar funding caps at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, and last week a similar suit was brought against the Department of Defense over its move to impose a 15% cap. A judge issued a temporary restraining order against the DOD cap one day after that suit was filed. The NSF lawsuit was filed on May 5th in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by 13 research universities and three higher education organizations: the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. The 13 plaintiff schools were Arizona State University, Brown University, the University of California, California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Cornell University, the University of Illinois, MIT, the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University. At issue was a May 2 'policy notice' in which NSF indicated it was capping its indirect cost reimbursement rate at 15% for all new grants and cooperative agreements awarded to university investigators rather than paying a negotiated rate for these support costs as had been its past practice. The negotiated rates typically have exceeded 50% for the plaintiff universities, according to the lawsuit. Indirect costs — also known as facilities and administrative costs — refer to the costs of conducting research that are not attributable to any one investigation. They include items like large-scale computer systems, maintenance of equipment, facility upgrades, the operation of labs, depreciation, employment of support staff, accounting, research compliance, legal expenses, and the salaries of key administrators in charge of an institution's research enterprise. The plaintiffs contended that NSF's policy was unlawful for several reasons, including violations of federal regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. They argued that 'the Rate Cap Policy exceeds NSF's statutory authority by reimposing, in more severe form, a categorical cap on indirect costs that Congress specifically eliminated in 1965 and has declined to reenact ever since." The government had argued that the policy was necessary to control costs, reduce administrative burdens on institutions and increase the amount of federal funds that could be used to support direct research costs. And it contended that it was legally permitted to set the flat 15% rate. In the end, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs' multiple claims about the illegality of the administration's actions. The government had agreed to voluntarily stay implementation of the 15% cap until June 20, the same day on which Judge Talwani handed down her ruling.

New York Times

31 minutes ago

• New York Times

Happy Birthday, Money

America has a bounty of 250th anniversaries to celebrate these days. On April 18, I went with my 9-year-old son to watch a re-enactment of Paul Revere's famous ride. The next day, we were among thousands of patriotic Americans at Lexington at 5 a.m., ready for the Redcoats to arrive and hear the shot heard around the world. June 22 is perhaps an even more consequential semiquincentennial, even if there are no re-enactors or commemorative gatherings. On this day in 1775, the Continental Congress invented a new currency and authorized the printing of $2 million. This currency proved to be both a blessing and a curse for the war effort. It's not mere history: Both the successes and the failures offer crucial lessons about how monetary and fiscal decisions affect the economy, and how they shape the credibility of the nation as a whole. Those lessons have resonated through all the intervening years of independence, expansion, conflict, depression, war, reinvention and more. Today the prospects for our currency are starting to turn ominous again. The Continental currency, like the Revolutionary War, had its origins in Massachusetts. For most of history, money had been tangible: gold, silver, wampum, salt blocks, jewelry beads. Paper in the form of private bills of exchange or promissory notes was rare (China and Japan are the notable exceptions here), used mainly by merchants and bankers, and generally able to be converted into some underlying commodity. That changed in 1690 when Massachusetts had a problem paying its bills from a failed expedition against French Quebec. London would not reimburse the costs. The raid itself captured no plunder. So the colony's resourceful government did something that was effectively unheard-of in the Western world: It created 7,000 pounds in its own 'bills of credit,' basically paper currency, with only a vague promise that they would be paid back (but a guarantee that they would be legal tender for tax payments). It created what was effectively fiat money. Although the Massachusetts experiment was, in many ways, a failure, contributing to decades of inflation, it was the model that the Continental Congress drew on when it needed to raise funds to equip the newly created Continental Army. In theory, the $2 million of 'bills of credit' it ordered up (initially in denominations from $1 to $20) were like bonds, entitling the bearer to be repaid in silver or gold at a future date, albeit without any promised interest or a plausible mechanism to raise the precious metals in question. In practice, the paper looked and functioned like currency today, complete with distinctly American imagery, the label 'the United Colonies' and the ability to serve as a medium of everyday exchange. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

The Boston Celtics will make some trades that will upset their fans this NBA offseason

The Boston Celtics will make some trades that will upset their fans this NBA offseason. Or at least that is the point of view that former Celtics beat writer and current NBA analyst for Heavy Dot Com Steve Bulpett. Speaking on a recent episode of the the CLNS Media "Celtics Beat" podcast, hosts Adam Kaufman and Evan Valenti took some time to talk about the possibilities of Boston making some drastic trades this summer with Bulpett. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA)'s second apron penalties are having their desires effects on the Celtics, and the general consensus is that veteran players on costly contracts like Jrue Holiday and Kristaps Porzingis could be on the move to get ahead of a potentially historic tax bill (and the penalties it will bring with it). Advertisement Take a look at the clip embedded below to hear what they had to say about what Boston might elect to do this offseason. If you enjoy this pod, check out the "How Bout Them Celtics," "First to the Floor," and the many other New England sports podcasts available on the CLNS Media network: This article originally appeared on Celtics Wire: The Celtics will make trades that will upset their fans this offseason