
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karla Monroy MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-3272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 20, 2015.
    James A. Brown, Topeka, KS, Trent Michael Krug, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karla Monroy Murillo, pro se.
    Gregory C. Robinson, Lansing, KS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MATHESON and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

The government moves to enforce the plea agreement, containing an appeal waiver, it entered into with Karla Monroy Murillo. Ms. Monroy Murillo does not oppose enforcement of the appeal waiver. Indeed, she requests that this court enforce the plea agreement and appeal waiver and dismiss her appeal. After independently considering the plea agreement and plea and sentencing hearing transcripts in light of the three-prong analysis set forth in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam), we conclude that the motion to enforce should be granted.

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal. 
      
       This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     