It's immediate if you can use Constructive Dilemma, which is this:
[(p ⊃ q) & (r ⊃ s) & (p v r)] ⊃ (q v s)
But here's how to prove it WITHOUT using Constructive Dilemma.
1. F ⊃ ~U
2. ~F ⊃ P
3. F v ~F / ~U v P
| 4. ~(~U v P) Assumption for Indirect Proof
| 5. ~~U & ~P 4, DeMorgan's Law
| 6. U & ~P 5, Double Negation
| 7. U 6, Simplification
| 8. ~F 1,7 Modus Tollens
| 9. ~P & U 6, Commutation
|10. ~P 9, Simplification
|11. ~~F 2,10 Modus Tollens
|12. F 11, Double Negation
|13. ~F & ~~F 12,11 Conjunction
|14. ~F & F 13, Double Negation
|15. ~(F v ~F) 14, DeMorgan's Law
|16. (F v ~F) & ~(F v ~F) 3,15 Conjunction
17. ~U v P Lines 4-16 Indirect Proof
Edwin