added)); Family Serv. Ass’n v. Wells Tp., 783 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir.2015) (“Johnson applies to interlocutory appeals that solely contest the plaintiffs account of the facts.” (emphasis added)); see also Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 640-41 (6th Cir.2015). And, in the event that legal and factual challenges are confused or entwined, “we must separate an appealed order’s reviewable determination (that a given set of facts violates clearly established law) from its unreviewable determination (that an issue of fact is ‘genuine’).” Roberson, 770 F.3d at 402 (citing Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319, 115 S.Ct. 2151) (quotation marks omitted). Similarly, we can separate an appellant’s reviewable challenges from its unreviewable. See, e.g., Wenk v. O'Reilly, 783 F.3d 585, 599 (6th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); Romo, 723 F.3d at 674 & n. 2 (6th Cir.2013)
recognizing that the appellant improperly premised his arguments on his evidence and his version of the disputed facts despite his purporting to accept the plaintiffappellees version and proceeding with our appellate review by accepting the plaintiffappellees version of the disputed facts and evidence holding that a statute of limitations defense raised for the first time during trial was waived construing a previous version of federal rule of criminal procedure 12 that was not substantively different from the current version holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving partys version of the incident to the extent that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect holding that on summary judgment a court should not adopt a version of the facts blatantly contradicted by the record