With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1518-19 (11th Cir.1984). We hold that the delay attributed to appellant under § 3161(h)(7) was reasonable. The reason for this continuance, i.e., the need for a codefendant to obtain counsel, is precisely the type of delay that is reasonable in a case involving twenty codefendants. See Darby, 744 F.2d at 1519. In addition, we cannot conclude that the length of the continuance, five months, was not necessary to serve the purpose of the continuance. Id. Reasonableness is also measured by the extent to which the defendant's defense is prejudiced. Id. at 1519. We find very little prejudice in the instant case. T of additional pretrial incarceration to be reasonable under § 3161(h)(7)); United States v. Varella, 692 F.2d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Davis, 679 F.2d 845, 850

A: holding a four month delay to be reasonable under  3161h7
B: holding that a five month delay is unreasonable
C: holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable
D: holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
A.