With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 420 Pa.Super. 115, 616 A.2d 6, 8 (1992). This Court has previously held delays of fifteen months, two years, and four years are not “intrinsically reasonable.” Woods, supra at 1228; Clark, supra at 124; Bischof, supra. ¶ 12 When examining the reasons for the delay, the court looks at the circumstances surrounding the delay to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence in scheduling the revocation hearing. Clark, supra at 124. The court should not fault the Commonwealth for delays resulting from the Department of Corrections’ inability to find, transport, or house defendants in their custody. Id. at 125. Similarly, a court should not attribute to the Commonwealth delays caused by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gaus, 300 Pa.Super. 372, 446 A.2d 661, 663-64 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, where the Commonwealth provides

A: holding delay of two years and four months lengthy enough to warrant review of other factors
B: holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
C: holding a four month delay to be reasonable under  3161h7
D: holding only two months of four year and eight month delay attributable to commonwealth where defendant fled and concealed his whereabouts for four years and six months
D.