Bambi 20.07.16 06:43 comment5, Switch_sdvue_zipEsetProtoscanCtx220c640, 797.

Feb 15th, 2017 In the first six weeks of 2017 there have been some important changes on the NAT/North Atlantic. Doc 4444 icao na russkom. (PDF, 6mB), and note: • The 16th edition incorporates the changes in Revisions 1-7 of the previous, 2007 edition. These are published in the latest edition of. This manual contains critical information for aircrews operating internationally. 1 February, 2017 The 2016 version (16th Edition) of Doc 4444 (Officially “PANS-ATM, or Procedures for Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management) was published in November 2016 by ICAO.

Appellant Ester Adut appeals from an order granting Joshua Sakov $500 in attorney fees. 1 Appellant has failed to include in the record a copy of the motion that precipitated the order she now contests. Given the state of the record, we are unable to conclude that the trial court erred in awarding the attorney fees.

Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Our recitation of the facts is constrained by the paucity of the record submitted in conjunction with this appeal. The underlying case is a marital dissolution proceeding. It appears that sometime prior to May 15, 2007, appellant filed a motion to set aside certain orders made by the trial court following a hearing held on January 5, 2007. On May 15, 2007, Sakov filed a responsive declaration alleging that appellant's motion to set aside was frivolous. The declaration includes a request for attorney fees. The accompanying proof of service states that Sakov's declaration was served on appellant on May 15, 2007, by leaving a copy on her front doorstep.

At the hearing on May 23, 2007, the court denied appellant's motion to set aside, stating: 'The court has completely responded in the past to the request for a further statement of decision and objections to the statement of decision on the issue as to whether [appellant's] request for spousal support was heard and ruled on. It was based on the testimony presented and the pleading. The court will order $500 in fees to Mr.

Sakov on this motion.' On June 20, 2007, the court issued its formal order denying appellant's motion and awarding the attorney fees in favor of Sakov. The order contains the notation 'Signed after review of [appellant's] objection.' This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION We first summarize the basic principles of appellate review. An appealed judgment or order is presumed to be correct, and '`All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown..'

[Citations.]' ( Denham v. Superior Court (1970), 564.) An appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption by an affirmative showing of error on an adequate record. Moses (2001), 1140-1141.) 'Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].' ( Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000), 502.) Furthermore, error alone does not warrant reversal. 'It is a fundamental principle of appellate jurisprudence in this state that a judgment will not be reversed unless it can be shown that a trial court error in the case affected the result.' ( In re Sophia B.