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
holding that a five month delay is unreasonable holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding a four month delay to be reasonable under  3161h7 holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable holding that eight months and ten days of delay was not an unreasonable period of delay to attribute to a codefendant under  3161h7