the other letters received. Mise indicated through counsel that he was unsure, and wished to discuss the matter with his mother. (J.A. 111-12.) On January 7, 2000, Mise filed his motion to withdraw. Under this Court’s precedent, an eighty-one day delay provides an appropriate basis to deny a motion to withdraw. See, e.g., id., at 798-99 (seventy-seven day delay was the “strongest factor” supporting the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw); Pluta, 144 F.3d at 973 (denying motion to withdraw where the defendant waited more than four months; citing cases); United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805, 807 (6th Cir.1996) (sixty-seven day delay was strongest factor for denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw); United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 104 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Spencer, 836 F.2d at 239 (thirty-five day
holding that a fiftyfive day gap was a lengthy delay holding that unexplained and lengthy delay in processing an applicants petition for naturalization amounts to affirmative misconduct which operated to estop ins from deporting petitioner due to a change in his status which arose from the delay holding delay of two years and four months lengthy enough to warrant review of other factors holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable holding one day past the 120day window not an unreasonable delay